Why does the RTD have a different nutrition profile than the powder?


#1

I got the RTD because I thought it’d be the same as the powder.
But it’s basically the same as Soylent.


#2

Ugh, that’s not an endorsement for me.


#3

Let’s see

21 grams fat, 2 of that saturated, 3.5 g poly-unsaturated
33 grams carbs: 3 g fiber , 9 g sugar (all added)
20 grams protein
Soy is the protein. Isomaltulose is the carb. Sunflower oil is the fat

19 grams fat: 4 of that saturated, 7 g poly-unsaturated
37 grams carbs: 6 grams fiber, 3 g sugar (all added)
20 grams protein

Protein: pea and brown rice. carbs: tapioca maltodextrin and oats. Fat: canola and flaxseed and coconut, sunflower lecithin.

Both 400 calories per bottle. Some similarities, but not “the same”. I would be interested to see the Glycemic Index of each, just out of curiosity.

From a brief look at huel RTD ingredients, it appears the Huel powder may be a little more nutritious. I am not a chemist, but I would assume that being in liquid form with a 6 month shelf life at room temp and still taste good, some sacrifices had to be made. Although I do applaud their ability to keep the simple sugar content low. It’s not near what we see in carnation instant breakfasts or Ensure.

Look, these are super convenient total meals that can provide a better alternative than other prepackaged foods with lots of sugar or saturated fats, or tons of salt. Huel RTD is not designed to be the main staple of a person’s diet. It’s a barely passable as "a meal’ at 400 calories. I mean, I’m “skinny” now and even I need more than 400 calories. But if you’re short on time and cannot go all the way till the next sit-down meal without some nutrition, of all the quick options out there this seems to be a good one. And you don’t even have to refrigerate it. It is what it is, and it’s a fairly good option for what it is.

The lesser of the two evils is always the correct choice. :slight_smile:


#4

The question is about Huel RTD vs powder, not RTD vs Soylent. As for soylent, I didn’t say same, but basically the same. Basically means it is close to same, which it is.


#5

Right. I understand. But I was arguing that my interpretation is that there is quite a bit of difference between Huel and Soylent liquid products due to their ingredients. Macro nutrient wise, they are very similar, which I did acknowledge.

The answer to your question about powder vs RTD huel and their different nutrition components has (likely) to do with stability in a liquid form. They probably found the Huel powder could not be properly stabilized into a liquid form without adding some harmful stuff. (I am speculating.) I mean, the Huel people themselves recommend storing a reconstituted Huel dosage in a cold pack or refrigerator and then consuming within 24 hrs. My personal experience is that this can go up to 48 hours but beyond that the taste suffers. So I definitely see why the formula had to be altered for a RTD formulation. Different components will degrade or react when in solution/suspension which don’t occur in dry powder form. Dry powder is a great long-term storage form. But it just requires some effort to reconstitute it.

And for safety, convenience, and ease of shipping, making Huel RTD stable at room temperature is superior to a refrigerated RTD product. So they had to balance all these factors along with overall nutrition profile and taste. This “best fit” solution seems to be what we see in Huel RTD.

Money is the driver of business. If Soylent has both a powder and RTD option, then shouldn’t Huel try to compete with both? If customers like a nutritious (or semi-nutritious) convenient complete meal and only Soylent offers RTD, customers might be more likely to buy Soylent RTD and powder just for name recognition and convenience of ordering. Hey look, now Huel has both! Now if I wanted Huel powder for most of my meals but occasionally need a RTD, I can just get both from one company. I don’t have to use Huel for powdered and Soylent for RTD.


#6

I agree with you about the nutritional information of the ready to drink. However, they were very clear before they launched it that it would be a different formula then the powder and the nutritional information was available. I want the most nutritious thing possible, and I can’t have a ton of carbs because of insulin resistance. I would rather take a slightly less convenient option if it means that I can have more nutrition. However, I guess some people have so have so many problems reconstituting powder if they are willing to take on the decreased nutrition and the extra costs. One of the key differences is that they have put less fiber and protein based on what I can tell. I would assume that this is because something happened where those nutrients cause problems when it was put into liquid form. I don’t know what the problem could be, but I assume there was one or they would have stuck with the same formula as the powder. I noticed that they changed the calories to match with the bottles. I hope that they won’t start changing the formula of the powder to match with the bottles as well. :frowning:


#7

Here is a thought. Perhaps they could consider canning or using a similar technology to better stabilize it without refrigeration. You don’t just have to use metal cans. Where I am, you can get things like plastic fruit cups that used canning technology, but they don’t have to be refrigerated. It could also be something else though like having to do with consistency or separation or things like that.